The Lawrence Community Mercantile has informed me that I will not be teaching cooking classes there again. I attempted to shine a light on some things that I consider profoundly unjust, and now I have lost my job. There are no winners in this, only losers. I feel pretty battered, and I know that some of the Merc’s employees do as well. For this I am deeply sorry. But the hurt human feelings are not the most important issue here. Let’s not lose sight of the real victims--the billions of non-human beings. Beings who have rich emotional lives similar to our own. They are victims of a violent paradigm, what social psychologist Melanie Joy has called, “Carnism” the invisible belief system that enables and perpetuates eating meat and dairy when it is not necessary to our survival. Carnism is a violent system and its continuation necessitates ongoing violence and exploitation from humans. We have all been born into a violent paradigm that most don’t even realize exists. We think it is just the way things always have been and everything about our culture attempts to keep us complicit and unquestioning. This enables good people to turn a blind eye to the widespread systemic forced impregnation of females, the violent removal of sperm from males, the destruction of the mother-infant bond, ripping apart of families and social groups, the painful removal of body parts without anesthetic, and finally the ending of the victim’s life against their will.

I believe that the humans who feel most injured by the truthful things I have said, are experiencing my words as “injury” because deep in their hearts, they can feel the discord of their own choices. They are either participating in carnism, defending carnism, or ignoring it. To paraphrase Albert Einstein --The world is a dangerous place not because of those who do bad things, but because of those who look on and do nothing. If those running The Merc and The Seed Fair truly believed my perspective had no validity, they would simply ignore me. But they can’t, because most of them are good, caring people, and I am raising awareness about how our widespread violence against other sentient beings is completely unnecessary here and now in Lawrence, Kansas, (and a factor contributing to many environmental problems, and the most common chronic diseases.) My perspective challenges how they want to see themselves – as progressive, non-violent, tolerant and champions of free speech.

It is unfortunate that The Merc proceeded as they did. They could have stayed “above the fray” by telling their meat vendors who objected to my teaching there, that The Merc represents a diverse community and they embrace free speech and the marketplace of ideas for their teachers, employees and member-owners, and taken no other action. But instead, they disallowed my teaching there for the upcoming month. They frame this as “They were just taking a break to let things calm down.” But in fact this action deprived me of income for a month, in direct response to my whistle blowing, and their vendors being upset.

I chose to discuss all of this publicly as it unfolded, because even more important to me than the lost income was the opportunity for people to see for themselves, what is normally invisible but powerfully shapes the dissemination of information in our culture. The public normally has no idea how decisions made out of their view determine what information they are (and are NOT) exposed to and may contribute to unnecessary exploitation of animals (and harms to humanity as a whole.) This is what I discuss in my talk “What Really Matters,” where I suggest that all human-caused tragedies in history have been enabled to occur for exactly one reason: Because every culture teaches its people to “not see” specific injustices that privilege some at the expense of others. For the record, the Merc employees I dealt with, I believe to be well-meaning people who have contributed much to make our community better in many ways. However I also believe that all of us, myself included, have the capacity to participate in injustice against others, that our own unique life experiences have contributed to us not recognizing what we are doing. That is precisely why people willing to come forward and express unpopular ideas are so critical. Do the people of Lawrence wish to end such willingness? If you believe you have witnessed injustice – from an employer, a public policy or group supposedly acting in the public interest -- and you risked speaking up about it, how would you hope others in our community would respond?

Sadly, people have no idea how much this rampant, unquestioned support for carnism is preventing dissemination of the best science related to nutrition in med schools, or being represented in USDA nutrition guidelines and driving our public subsidies to farmers. Collectively all these reduce exposure to information that might alter individuals’ dietary choices. (Check out the book, Meatonomics for more on this.) The science showing arrest and reversal of heart disease with a healthy vegan diet is compelling (and it’s a CHEAP option!) – and yet most cardiologists never even mention this is an option to their patients.

"If an oil-free, whole-foods vegan diet could arrest orreverse my heart disease/diabetes/asthma/prostate cancer,and get me off these expensive drugs with terrible side effects...how come my doctor hasn't ever mentioned this to me before?" (What dozens of people have said to the author -- Now you know why.)

If you care about slowing climate change, reducing violence, solving the health care crisis, not exacerbating food insecurity for the global poor, one choice you make every single day connects all of these issues, and it’s what you choose to eat. Please, if you are reading this, go to my resources page and start engaging the information there. You will find out about free videos, mp3s, essays, library books and links to peer-reviewed literature on so many different but interrelated topics. This information can improve your life and together we can change our world.

This is so well written and important. The time has come when those who consider themselves to be on the right side of justice, those who call themselves progressive and open minded, think critically about the reality of our treatment of other species. Thank you for this JoAnn.

Reply

Kristine Furlought

2/7/2016 10:19:49 am

Ohh,my! I am truly surprised with the Merc- of all the people who should understand your position,they should!! But...I am also aware that over the years,as often as I have discretely inquired 'why' a seemingly PC organization as the Merc would still be into ' meats' etc( meaning dead animals produce), I have found there to be a ' closed' reception. We as people,DONOT need to eat ,harm,kill,abuse,expermeny with,exploit other species,in order to survive!! We are,allegedly,the more intelligent,therefore,we must be providing the alternatives to ' carnism'...we DO NOT have dominion over animals...we are stewards of them...that means protecting them,providing care and freedom- from- fear and slaughter...yet,FEAR is exactly what drives most carnism...and directed Amis- information from the power- mongrels! I am truly sorry for your dismissal,J...but the work has just begun!,Blessings on you for your courage!!

Reply

Kate Skwire

2/7/2016 10:41:01 am

Thank you for this article and for what you do. Many people out there truly do want to know the truth and are willing to change when they are permitted to hear it! We must continue to spread the message even though people institutions and corporations will try to silence us.

Reply

markgil

2/7/2016 03:08:40 pm

“It’s troubling when people get upset with vegan’s for pointing out the suffering, rather than getting upset with themselves for causing it”-Jo Tyler

It says a lot about Merc that, instead of banning the meat vendors in response to your objections (did you tell Merc that you objected to the meat vendors?), they fired you instead. You said they fired you for a month: does this mean that in March or April your cooking classes could be reinstated? Are your supporters in Lawrence who shop at Merc, or used to shop there, protesting on your behalf directly to the Merc owners? In other words, the Merc people don't want the suffering of the animals to be included in the cooking classes; they want you to leave the animals out of the discussion and stick to just food? Did customers and students in your cooking classes complain to Merc? Or were the complaints lodged only by the meat vendors?

Reply

Victoria Hart

2/8/2016 07:13:42 pm

Even with the best of intentions, the Merc and other businesses like them cannot be in full support of two opposing viewpoints simultaneously. They can talk the talk of all-inclusivity if they like, but not walk the walk; it just isn't possible. To understand my point, one must realize that veganism, unlike vegetarianism, has always had a specific, unifying philosophy associated with it, and has also always dealt with much more than what one eats. The term "vegan" was coined by Donald Watson in 1944 and adopted by the group who founded The Vegan Society in England later that year. Their definition of "veganism," which is accepted as the decisive standard worldwide, is as follows:

"Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived wholly or in part from animals."

As this blog post mentions, there is a long-standing belief system (i.e. "carnism") that the majority of people embrace and uphold, though unaware that they haven't made the choice freely but were indoctrinated into it from birth. To participate in it, people must learn to be pro-exploitation, pro-violence, and have irreverence for life. They must be taught that it is normal, natural, and necessary to commit atrocities such as infanticide, sexual assault, theft, mutilation, vivisection, torture, murder, and other ugly acts against those individuals they deem as having lesser value; beings they claim to have dominion over. These acquired degrading convictions enable "carnists" to treat animals as they do, oppressively and without a twinge of guilt or remorse, until someone or something challenges their desensitization/numbness. In sharp contrast, those who act in alignment with the authentic definition of veganism are sensitive/awake to the unjust treatment of their fellow animal brethren, stand against such, and also exhibit a reverence for life. In the broader sense, vegans earnestly desire and thus help create a world where NO exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom is permissible, and they insist on a world where irreverence for life is NEVER tolerated.

PC/progressive claims aside, isn't the Merc actually against veganism -- going by the authentic definition, above --and the world that vegans work towards? Don't they support animal exploitation, animal cruelty, and irreverence for life, as evidenced by the in-store merchandise and educational offerings that proudly promote "animal products"? The authentic vegan message isn't about personal "choices" and so-called "vegan options", but rather cries out for reverence for life and the end of ALL animal use. I'm not seeing how the Merc supports that in any credible manner,... but maybe one day it will.

History proves that it is common for people to hide from a terrible injustice and the part they play in it. And some get upset or angry at whoever is trying to change the status quo, no matter how hurtful the system is. JoAnn, may you find a place where you and your passion for justice are received gratefully with open arms rather than tolerated, trampled, censored, or shunned.

Reply

Jack McMillan

2/9/2016 04:01:34 pm

Outstanding response JoAnn. You left no stone unturned. I am sure that your essay has made many many people in Lawrence, and beyond, wake up to the undeniable truths you so eloquently articulated. You exposed the curtain for what it is, and then you lifted it, revealing truths no one can deny, save for a continuation of the endless human capacity to rationalize evil. Thank you for expressing this so beautifully.

Reply

Somebody

2/11/2016 01:34:11 pm

Wow. I've read most of this and it seems to me the only thing you want is The Merc to be an all vegan grocery store. That's not happening. Some people want to buy meat and the vast majority of people eat it. Every grocery store sells it. I understand you're the kind of person who wants to force your vegan beliefs on people but thats bull crap lady.

Reply

Rae Sikora

2/11/2016 01:52:39 pm

I do not see it that way at all. What I think is that the Merc should encourage critical thinking and allow people to hear ALL perspectives and make their own choices. With education, they will make informed choices. Sharing beliefs and ideas with each other is not the same as forcing beliefs.

Reply

Victoria Hart

2/11/2016 10:28:28 pm

Dear Somebody,
In response to your comment, I offer the following from: http://freefromharm.org/eating-animals-addressing-our-most-common-justifications/

"Vegans push their beliefs on others and turn others off."

If you care about animals and feel compelled to defend them, chances are you’ve come across knee-jerk accusations claiming you are “pushing your agenda,” forcing your ideas down their throat,” or “spreading propaganda.” So, why don’t other social justice advocates face the same accusations? It is very telling that human rights activists who campaign against violent and exploitative practices, such as sweatshop labor or sex trafficking, are rarely, if ever, criticized for pushing their beliefs on others. On the contrary, these activists are often lauded for their passion and commitment to justice and for exposing injustices.

So, why is it that when we advocate against the same violent and exploitative practices perpetrated against other animals, we are suddenly “pushing an agenda,” “forcing ideas down their throats,” and “spreading propaganda”? When billions of lives are at stake and systematic violence and killing of innocent victims is being waged largely in silence and out of sight, is the appropriate response to hand out recipes for vegan chocolate mousse? How would we react, or expect others to react, if the victims were instead humans? Why do we shoot the messenger, attack the whistleblower and thereby ignore or trivialize the victims?

It’s clear that such responses are based in speciesism, but believing that human suffering and human lives are worth more than the suffering and lives of other animals does not negate all moral consideration for them. And it certainly does not justify systematically exploiting, killing and eating them when we could easily avoid it — when the only reason we have for doing so is that we get some pleasure out of eating their flesh or secretions. Characterizing animal advocates as the problem is part of a concerted effort to invalidate the animal protection / liberation movement and reinforce social and cultural norms. It’s a reaction social psychologist Melanie Joy calls secondary carnistic defenses. As Joy explains, “secondary defenses are a part of a backlash against veganism; a backlash is a reaction of the dominant culture when its power is threatened.”

When faced with this kind of reaction animal advocates would do well to shift the focus of attention back on where it belongs: the victims. The undeniable truth is that these critics who claim that we are forcing our views on them are already paying someone to literally force feed, impregnate females by force, separate babies from mothers by force, force them to live in confinement and/or one’s own filth, mutilate their beaks, hooves, genitalia, tails, toes, ears and teeth by force, transport them to slaughter by force, and violently take their lives by force. People who buy animal products inadvertently pay for abuse of power and influence on many levels they don’t see, each and every time they buy an animal product. But no one can force you to accept an idea.

According to professor and philosopher Mylan Engel, there is no need to push people to change their beliefs since most people already accept the basic principle of minimization of harm. On the contrary, he writes, “Your beliefs and values already commit you to the immorality of eating animals.” We already accept the notion of minimal harm, that we should avoid harming animals unnecessarily and especially in cases where someone derives pleasure from that harm. And eating animals represents 99.7% of the animals needlessly harmed by humans.

Finally, the real source of power and influence is staring us in the face: just follow the money. Those who have the most financial interest in protecting an unethical practice, like exploiting and killing innocent animals or exploiting workers in sweatshop factories, must invest effort and resources in concealing the ugly truth of their enterprise. For example, Cargill alone spent $1,792,000,000 just on promoting animal products to consumers in one year, 2012.
Propaganda is a tool used by those in a position of power to influence and deceive the public by masking a violent reality with fictions. It is therefore foolhardy to compare a small vocal minority, such as animal advocates or vegans, with the industries that spend billions of dollars in marketing annually to create a propaganda machine powerful enough to brainwash 98% of consumers, including those with higher education degrees who are otherwise critical thinkers.

More from:
http://freefromharm.org/eating-animals-addressing-our-most-common-justifications/

"Everyone eats animal products. It’s just the way things are. You’re never going to change that."

Whenever we base an argument on an appeal to the mob mentality, we commit a logical fallacy that concludes something is true simply because a critical mass of people believe it to be true. But what happens when we think critically for ourselves and see through what we’re told is normal? Social psychologist Melanie Joy perhaps says it best: “It’s just the way things are. Take a moment to consider this statement. Really think about it. We send one species to the butcher and give our love and kindness to another apparently for no other reason than because it’s the way things are. When our attitudes and behaviors towards animals are so inconsistent, and this inconsistency is so unexamined, we can safely say we have been fed absurdities. It is absurd that we eat pigs and love dogs and don’t even know why. Many of us spend long minutes in the aisle of the drugstore mulling over what toothpaste to buy. Yet most of don’t spend any time at all thinking about what species of animal we eat and why. Our choices as consumers drive an industry that kills ten billion animals per year in the United States alone. If we choose to support this industry and the best reason we can come up with is because it’s the way things are, clearly something is amiss.” To explore Joy’s work more in depth, check out her excellent presentation on carnism. Finally, keep in mind that every social justice movement has been met with the same resistance, particularly in the beginning phases, with naysayers claiming “people will never change.” For example, the abolitionists were often ridiculed and even threatened with violence and death by their critics, who claimed they would never succeed at abolishing slavery. But indeed they did.

Reply

Victoria Hart

2/11/2016 10:31:43 pm

Still more from:
http://freefromharm.org/eating-animals-addressing-our-most-common-justifications/

"What I eat is a personal choice! Don’t judge me and I won’t judge you!"

There is actually a hidden judgment in the statement “Don’t judge.” If you claim that people should not be judged for eating animal products then you are simultaneously making the judgment that an animal’s entire lifetime of experiences is worth even less than satisfying some trivial, momentary taste sensation. This judgment is based on an entrenched prejudice against a handful of species that we just so happen to want to exploit and kill for food. There is no personal, neutral or morally relative position on eating animal products. If animals matter, then we don’t violate their right to life and liberty when we can so easily avoid it, such as in the case of replacing animal products with alternatives. And since 99.7% of the animals exploited by humans are those raised for food products we have no biological need to eat, this matters a great deal.

For a more in-depth exploration of the subject, see this article: http://freefromharm.org/animal-products-and-psychology/five-reasons-why-meat-eating-cannot-be-considered-a-personal-choice/